Not as guro as I had thought by Klaus's earlier comments - in fact smth like the EF 24-105/4 L II seemed to have fared even worse on the 5DSR IIRC - but still not something I would consciously get for my own $/€/₽. The 24-85 cost me $90 - though it came without so much as a front cap - so I'm willing to look past its shortcomings, but $400 for this one looks a bit steep. As Klaus has rightfully pointed out, one doesn't usually buy expensive FF bodies and put any junk on them (not even "the cheapest" in this case) hoping that "FF magic" alone will help.
Let the "coke bottle" designation stick. You certainly get a lot of distortion and vignetting looking through an actual coke bottle LOL.
"A verdict on the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS has to be a bit colorful than usual." A bit more colourful?
Right. I'm no longer proofreading because I'm a bit busy with work (but PZ reviews come first, as much needed entertainment amid a sweltering hot work day).
Speaking of coke bottles... RELEASE THE EXPERIMENTS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9NVAF254mo&t=679s
I mean, bring on the 24-240.
(07-02-2021, 11:14 AM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2021, 10:29 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]"A verdict on the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS has to be a bit colorful than usual." A bit more colourful?
Shades of grey
You misse the "more" part in the sentence...
TBVH, it looks better than de EF equivalents. Yes, in RAW it actually vignettes badly, but from what I have seen elsewhere it actually has a larger AoV at the 24 mm position than a 24 mm lens, and the jpeg conversion crops the image to 24 mm.
IOW, it is meant as a lens for jpegs, which is just fine for its intended user group, especially at the price. It sells for € 349 over here, the RF 50 F/1.8 for € 229, and the RF 35 Macro for € 529. From that POV it is actually very reasonably priced.
For nerds like ourselves here it doesn't cut the mustard, but just like creating a good image depends more on the skills of the photographetr than the equipment used, it is a similar thing here. Not every home chef needs the top end of Japanese sushi knives or most expensive pans to create a good dish either.
@Rover: the RF 24-240 is a little better both in RAW and jpeg than this 24-105. I shoudl know - I own one as a single do-all walk -around lens ....
No, these lenses are not L-lenses, but considering what they can do and their prices, I wouldn't expect that either. They are more than good enough for casual shots, though.
Speaking of bad lenses... the Sony 24-240 is reported to be truly awful. When reviewing the Tamron 28-200, Dustin Abbott did some comparisons with that lens and the equivalent Canon, and the Sony was unbelievably bad on that backdrop.